The Republican. [volume] (Oakland, Md.) 1877-current, 1887-12-10
Prohibition Sustained.

prohibition Sustained.
WASHINGTON, Dec. ga very inn
portant decision. and one likely to be
far-reaching in its consequences, was
rendered by the United States Su-
preme Court.today in the so-called
Kansas prohibition cases of Mugler
against the State of Kansas, and the
State of Kansas against Ziebold and
others. The judgment Of the-court
was pronounced in long and elab-
crate opinion by Mr.. Justice Harlan,
who said; "The general question in
each case is whether the prohibition
statutes of Kansas are in conflict
with that clause of the fourteenth
amendment which provides that mo
State shall make or enforce any law
which shall abridge the privileges or
immunities of citizens of the United
States nor shall any State deprive
any person of his life, liberty or
property without due process of law
That legislation by State prohibit
ing the manufacture within her linn
its of intoxicating liquors to be there
sold or bartered for general use as
beverage does not necessarily in
firing any right, privilege or immu.
nifty secured by the constitution of
the United States is made clear by
the decision of this court rendered
before and since the adoption of the
fourteenth amendment. 1t is, how
ever. contended that, although the
State may prohibit the manufacture
of Intoxicating liquors for sale or bar
ter within her limits for general use
as beverage, no Convention or Leg
islature has the right under our form
of government to prohibit any citi-
zen from manufacturing for his own
use or for export or storage any ar
ticle of food or drink not endangering
or affecting the rights of others. 1t
will be observed that the proposition
and the argument made in support
of it equally concede that the right
to manufacture drink for ones per.
sonal use is subject to the condition
that such manufacture does not en-
danger or affect the rights of others.
If such manufacture does prejudi-
cally affect the rights and interests of
the community, it follows, from the
very premises stated by counsel, that
society has the power to protect itself
by legislation against the injurious
consequences of that business. But
by whom or by what authority is it
to be determined whether the manu-
facture Of particular articles of drink
either for general use or for the
personal use of the maker-will in
juriously affect the public? Power
to determine such questions so as to
bind all must exist somewhere, else
society will be at the mercy of the
few, who. regarding only their own
appetites or passions, may be willing
to imperil the peace and security of
the many, provided only they are
permitted to do as they please. IN
der our system that power is lodged
with the legislative branch of the
government. It belongs to that de-
partment to exert what are known as
the police powers of the State. 1t
must determine primarily what
measures are appropriate or needful
for the protection of the public NOR
ais, the public health or the public
safety. There is here no justification
for holding that the State under the
guise merely of police regulations is
aiming to deprive the citizen of his
constitutional rights, for we cannot
shut out Of view the fact, within the
knowledge of all, that the public
health, the public morals and the
public safety may be endangered by
the general Use of Intoxicating drinks;
nor can we ignore the fact, establish.
ed by statistics accessible to every
one that the disorder, pauperism and
eSime prevalent in the country are,
In large measure. directly traceable
to this evil. If, therefore, State
deems the absolute prohibition of The
manufacture and sale within her
limits of intoxicating liquors for
other than medical, scientific and
manufacturing purposes to be neces-